I prefer the rendering of the Contax but that is my personal taste. I have never been a fan of silky smooth buttery bokeh. I feel that the effect gets a bit boring after a while. All lenses have strengths and weaknesses, and if you own one long enough, you will learn how to use it to the best effect.
Bifurcator wrote:
This FD and C/Y render a lot alike!
cogitech wrote:
I vehemently (but respectfully) disagree! Not even close!
Bifurcator wrote:
Sure, cool, NP - that's the purpose of the thread after-all... Look at the poll results so far tho.
cogitech wrote:
The poll is meaningless. I'd be willing to bet a large sum that a very small percentage of voters have even used the FD.
I would not believe that you would let a poll influence your decision anyway, so it is a moot point.
I would in this case tho. One will be sold. I love both about the same. I wanna sell whichever is most popular - (I think...).
cogitech wrote:
Go over to the Canon forum and create a poll between the EF 85L and the C/Y 85/1.2...
Lop-sided, maybe?
You know everyone around here are Zeisserbators. They click on anything with the word Zeiss in it, especially if it is up against "some shitty old Canon."
Blinders.
I'm not convinced that's the case really. I think a poll between the Canon 135/2 and a similar Zeiss (135/2.8 ?) would see the Canon win 3 to 1. I would hope so anyway.
Bifurcator wrote:
I would in this case tho. One will be sold. I love both about the same. I wanna sell whichever is most popular - (I think...).
cogitech wrote: . You sneaky bastard!
I should probably add that I really am genuinely interested in what people think of the two. How they think they differ and why those differences are preferable. So it's only a little sneaky.
Sorry, just a dumb joke. I was referring to your comment that the Contax 85 and FD 85L render the same.... But I didn't realize it had made it to a second page so the timing was off. No disrespect intended.
cogitech wrote:
You know everyone around here are Zeisserbators. They click on anything with the word Zeiss in it, especially if it is up against "some shitty old Canon."
Blinders.
i actually kinda like this shot: cogitech wrote:
Here is an example of why I sold the Zeiss:
your comparison isn't really fair paul since you don't show any zeiss shots done similarly to the FD shots. though i believe you from what i've seen from other peoples pictures.
i have no experience with either lens but from what i've seen i think i would definitely prefer the FD for events where i can't control the background (though i would probably prefer the samyang that i already have more) and the contax for shots that i get to set up myself.
cogitech wrote:
Just having some fun. But seriously, I do think it comes into play in a significant way.
Just like one can't take my FD photos with the Zeiss, one can't take them with 4/3rds (and either of these lenses), either.
Thus why I specified a preference for critiquing them on the basis of their use on a crop camera for those with that experience. I think crop can't compare exactly to FF either but any two lenses will render with about the same amount of difference on µ4/3 or APS-C as they show between them on a FF.
. You sneaky bastard!